Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer Blog

October 2, 2015

COLLEGE STUDENT AVOIDS CRIMINAL RECORD

On September 16, 2015 DP, an 18 year old college Freshman from Andover, allowed a 16 year old friend to drive his car. DP was in the car at the time. DP thought that the friend had a learner’s permit and DP thought that because he was 18 and licensed that he could allow the friend to drive the car. DP was wrong on both counts. His friend did not have a learner’s permit and the age is 21, not 18. The friend cut another car off and unbeknownst to either DP or the friend a police car was directly behind them. The blues went on and the friend pulled over. The police cited the friend from Negligent Operation and Operating without a License. The police cited DP for allowing an improper person to operate. There is a criminal statute in Massachusetts that makes it a crime for the owner or person in control of a motor vehicle to allow an “improper person” to operate their vehicle. The term “improper person” includes someone who has no permit or license. DP had no criminal record and is a college freshman and wants to keep his record clean. DP and his parents hired Attorney Robert Lewin from North Andover to handle the case.

Attorney Lewin knows the Andover Police Prosecutor well. Attorney Lewin spoke immediately with the police prosecutor and explained the situation to the police prosecutor. The police prosecutor agreed with Attorney Lewin’s request to not have a criminal complaint be issued against DP. On October 1, 2015 Attorney Lewin and DP and his parents appeared at Lawrence District Court for a hearing before a Clerk-Magistrate. At the hearing Attorney Lewin explained that DP thought his friend had a learner’s permit and he thought that being 18 he could allow his friend to drive.

September 30, 2015

FORGERY AND UTTERING CHARGES DROPPED

by Robert D. Lewin

In February of 2012 DW walked into the Credit Union in Peabody where he had an account. DW had 2 US Postal Money Orders with him – or at least what appeared to be US Postal Money Orders. DW deposited the two money orders which totaled $1,980.00. Several days later DW withdrew the money from his account. Sometime later the Money Orders were determined to be fraudulent and the Credit Union went to debit DW’s account the $1,980 but his account had no funds in it. The Credit Union went to the police and a criminal complaint was taken out against DW in Peabody District Court for 2 counts of forgery and 2 counts of uttering a forged money order. All four charges are felonies and carry serious penalties. By the time the Court mailed out a criminal summons for DW to appear in Court he had moved and did not receive the summons. A warrant issued for DW’s arrest. Three years later in 2015 DW learned of the warrant and went to Peabody District Court and got the warrant cancelled. He was arraigned on the four charges and his case was continued for a pre-trial hearing to September 30, 2015. DW retained Attorney Robert Lewin of North Andover. (Attorney Lewin had successfully represented DW years earlier in a criminal motor vehicle matter in Malden District Court.)
Attorney Lewin immediately went over to the Peabody District Court and obtained a copy of the police report and the report from the Credit Union. It became clear to Attorney Lewin that there was no evidence or proof that DW knew that the two money orders were fraudulent. Knowledge is a necessary element of all the four charges against DW. The Commonwealth has to prove that DW knew the money orders were fraudulent. Moreover, there was absolutely no evidence or proof that DW forged or made the false money orders. Sure the Credit Union had him on video depositing the forged money orders but that is not proof that he forged them or that he knew they were forged. In any event Attorney Lewin went to the DA’s Office and told them DW was innocent, there was no proof that he forged the money orders and there was no proof that he knew they were forged. From a civil (non-criminal) law point of view DW owed the Credit Union the $1,980.00. But he was charged criminally. On September 30, 2015 DW and Attorney Lewin appeared in Peabody District Court. DW agreed to pay the Credit Union the $1,980.00 and the Commonwealth agreed to dismiss all the charges. DW walked out of the Court a happy man.

September 25, 2015

SUSPENSED LICENSE CHARGE DISMISSED

by Robert D. Lewin

On August 24, 2015 JO, a 52 year old woman from Lawrence was driving her car and headed the wrong way down a one way street. There was an officer there who immediately pulled her over. Unfortunately for JO her license was suspended and had been suspended since 1993 when she was involved in a car accident and failed to pay a property damage judgment that had been entered against her. In Massachusetts if you are involved in an accident where you cause damage to another vehicle (or other property) and you fail to pay for the damage the Registry suspends your license until you pay the property damage judgment or work out a payment schedule. JO had never been able to pay or work out a payment schedule. JO was cited by the officer and was sent a notice to come to court for a Clerk-Magistrate hearing for a one-way street violation and for operating after suspension of license. JO retained Attorney Robert Lewin.
Attorney Lewin told JO the best approach in these cases is to get your license reinstated before the Court hearing. It turned out that the Attorney for the party that had the property damage judgment against JO had died. Attorney Lewin sent JO to the RMV and because there was no record as to whom the money was owing and there was no one to pay the RMV lifted the suspension and reinstated JO’s driving privileges. Because it had been 22 years, JO was issued a learner’s permit and must take the driving test again. Attorney Lewin spoke with the Police Prosecutor and told the Police Prosecutor the background of the case and that JO had been reinstated by the RMV. The police prosecutor agreed that he would not press for a criminal complaint to be issued against JO at the Clerk-Magistrate Hearing.
On September 24, 2015, JO and Attorney Lewin appeared at Lawrence District Court for a Clerk-Magistrate Hearing. Attorney Lewin showed the Clerk-Magistrate and the Police Prosecutor JO’s new learners permit. Attorney Lewin asked that a criminal complaint not be issued against JO. The Clerk-Magistrate then dismissed the application for the criminal complaint and she also entered a not responsible finding on the one-way street violation. JO won her entire case. JO walked out of the courthouse very happy.

September 23, 2015

WARRANT CANCELLED/LICENSE REINSTATED

by Robert D. Lewin

CB, a 40 year old plumber who needs a license to work, got in trouble in Lynn District Court back in 2009. He left Massachusetts and moved to FL and got a FL license. In 2015 he went to renew his FL license and was told he could not because his license/right to operate had been suspended in MA due to an outstanding warrant in Lynn District Court. In fact CB had a 2009 criminal case in Lynn that was in warrant status due to unpaid money. When CB called Lynn District Court he was told he would have to come up to MA to clear the warrant. On Monday, September 21, 2015 CB retained Attorney Robert Lewin from North Andover. On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 Attorney Lewin went to Lynn District Court without CB and paid the moneys that were owing to the Court. The Court removed the default that had been entered against CB, cancelled the warrant, and ordered the case dismissed. The Registry of Motor Vehicles was notified, the suspension on CB’s license/right to operate was lifted, and CB is now able to renew his FL license.

September 16, 2015

INDECENT EXPOSURE CHARGE AVOIDED

by Robert D. Lewin

On Thursday morning, July 2, 2015, PQ, a 64 year old man from Cambridge was out working in his garden completely naked. His next door neighbor a sixty-eight year old female was not amused. The police were called and responded. This was not the first time that PQ had done this – in fact it was the third time that had been reported. By the time the police had arrived PQ was in his house and had his clothes on. The female neighbor – who suffers from PTSD – told the police she was “shocked and alarmed” by his repetitive behavior. The police could have charged PQ with Open and Gross Lewdness and arrested him on the spot. Open and Gross Lewdness is a felony and upon two convictions sex offender registration is required. PQ got his first break that morning. The police did not arrest him; instead the police told him he would be receiving a notice from the Court. About one month later PQ received a Notice from the Cambridge District Court that the Cambridge Police had filed an application for a criminal complaint to issue against PQ for Indecent Exposure. The Notice informed PQ that a hearing would be held by a Clerk-Magistrate at the Court to determine whether or not PQ would be formally charged.That was PQ’s second break; the police were seeking a criminal complaint for Indecent Exposure, a misdemeanor that does not require sex offender registration as opposed to the felony charge of Open and Gross Lewdness. (Open and Gross Lewdness is an enhanced form of indecent exposure; it is Indecent Exposure that causes “shock and alarm”.) PQ retained Attorney Robert Lewin from North Andover. Attorney Lewin told PQ he had to enroll immediately with a therapist/counselor/psychologist with expertise in exhibitionism. PQ followed Attorney Lewin’s suggestion and immediately began a program of psychological counseling. Attorney Lewin contacted the Cambridge Police Prosecutor who in turn put Attorney Lewin in contact with the Officer who would be prosecuting the case at the Clerk-Magistrate Hearing. Attorney Lewin spoke at length with the prosecuting police officer and explained that PQ was now in psychological counseling. Attorney Lewin suggested to the prosecutor that the case be resolved at the level of the Clerk-Magistrate Hearing; specifically, Attorney Lewin advocated that a criminal complaint not be issued.
On September 15, 2015 PQ and Attorney Lewin appeared in Cambridge District Court for the Clerk-Magistrate Hearing. PQ’s neighbor was there; the property manager for the complex where PQ and his neighbor live was present; and the prosecutor from Cambridge PD was present. The neighbor told her story to the Clerk-Magistrate; the property manager testified as to the prior complaints from other neighbors in the complex and as to how PQ had been spoken to by the property manager on prior occasions. Attorney Lewin informed the Clerk-Magistrate as to PQ’s good background and as to how he had immediately enrolled in counseling with a psychologist with expertise in dealing with sex offenders. Attorney Lewin presented a report from the psychologist. Attorney Lewin advocated for the Clerk-Magistrate not to issue the criminal complaint but rather to hold the application for one year and if PQ were in no further trouble then the application could be dismissed. The neighbor objected and wanted either a complaint to issue or the matter to be left open for two years. Ultimately the Clerk-Magistrate adopted Attorney Lewin’s proposal and continued the hearing for one year. The Clerk-Magistrate gave PQ a stern warning that if he exposes himself again that he will be arrested and charged with both this case and the new case.
This was a significant win for PQ. He was not charged with any criminal offense; no entry will be made on his criminal record; when the one year goes by – assuming he has been able to keep his clothes on – this application for a criminal complaint will be denied and dismissed and the papers are destroyed. PQ left the courthouse quite relieved.

September 15, 2015

FOUR FELONIES DISMISSED IN LOWELL DISTRICT COURT

by Robert D. Lewin

On May 1, 2015, SC, a 19 year old fellow from Dracut with no criminal record, got very high smoking a controlled substance with several neighbors. At 1:00 AM he went to a convenient store in Dracut; the store was closed. SC had a barbell with him and proceeded to break a plate glass window and the window frame attempting to gain entrance to the store. A silent alarm was tripped and the police responded. A neighbor also had seen what had gone on and the store security system video had captured images of SC breaking the window and the frame. The police arrived and observed SC’s condition; it was clear he was under the influence of something. SC called his Mother who also responded to the scene. The police allowed SC to go in the custody of his Mother but told him he would be summonsed into court. Eight weeks later SC received a summons to appear in Lowell District Court to answer to a criminal complaint charging SC with two counts of malicious destruction to property over $250, attempted breaking and entering, and possession of burglars tools (all felonies). SC and his mother came to see Attorney Robert Lewin in North Andover and retained Attorney Lewin. SC had no criminal record and having four felony charges on his record could create great problems for SC in terms of getting employment or going to college. Firstly, Attorney Lewin explained to SC that if anything helps make this type of case go away it is paying for the damage done to the store and apologizing to the store owner. SC’s Mother and Grandfather went to the storekeeper and had a heart to heart talk with the storekeeper. The storekeeper had spent $1,062 replacing the large plate glass and fixing the window frame. SC’s grandfather wrote out a check to the storekeeper for the full amount. The storekeeper was very appreciative and wrote out a receipt. On the receipt he specifically requested that all the charges against SC be dropped. Attorney Lewin called the Police Prosecutor from Dracut and explained the situation. Attorney Lewin then went over to Lowell District Court and met face to face with the Police Prosecutor from Dracut. Attorney Lewin asked the police to agree to dismiss the criminal charges prior to arraignment. The significance of the criminal charges being dismissed prior to arraignment is that the charges DO NOT GO ON THE ACCUSED PERSON’S RECORD. A criminal record gets created once an accused person is arraigned in court. The police prosecutor was agreeable. Now it was necessary to get the District Attorney’s Office to agree. Attorney Lewin made a call to the Supervisor of the District Attorney’s Office at Lowell District Court. Attorney Lewin explained the entire case and that the police were agreeable to the charges being dismissed prior to arraignment. Attorney Lewin put the Assistant District Attorney in touch with the police prosecutor and the Assistant District Attorney then agreed to the charges being dismissed prior to arraignment.
On September 15, 2015 SC and Attorney Lewin appeared in Lowell District Court. SC’s case was called in the First Criminal Session and Attorney Lewin informed the Judge that the Commonwealth and the Defense had agreed that all the charges were to be dismissed without SC being arraigned (prior to arraignment). The Judge ordered the charges all dismissed prior to arraignment.
As a result of this disposition SC has NO CRIMINAL RECORD. If a CORI check is done on SC this case will not show up. It is as if it did not happen. SC and his Mother left the Courthouse very very happy with the result.

August 4, 2015

3 TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS IN LOWELL – NOT RESPONSIBLE

by Robert D. Lewin

On April 23, 2014, BN, a 20 year old male from Tewksbury, was driving on his way to work. He was on Livingston Street in Tewksbury. A car was parked on the right side of the road with its hazard lights on. That car was half way in the travel lane and half way over the fog line. BN approached the stopped vehicle, slowed, put his left directional signal on, proceeded over the center line of the road, passed the stopped vehicle, and then went back into his lane of travel. An unmarked car pulled up behind BN and began to blink its lights. The unmarked car got right on BN’s tail. BN continued on. The unmarked car then pulled alongside BN and the operator held up a police badge. BN pulled over. An off-duty Tewksbury Police Officer came out of the unmarked car and approached BN. The off-duty police officer called for a cruiser and an on-duty police officer responded to the scene. BN was ordered out of his car; he was patted down by the police; the police searched his car. The police found nothing. The police then gave BN a citation for speeding and two marked lane violations.

BN requested a hearing and mailed in the citation. BN went to the first hearing before the Clerk-Magistrate without a lawyer and lost. BN appealed.

BN retained Attorney Robert Lewin from North Andover for the appeal hearing in front of the Judge. BN met with Attorney Lewin and fully prepared for the hearing. BN and Attorney Lewin went over the facts of the case in great detail. Attorney Lewin thoroughly prepared BN to testify. Attorney Lewin had BN practice his testimony as if they were in Court.

July 22, 2015

TWO SHOPLIFTING CHARGES AVOIDED

by Robert D. Lewin

On March 12, 2015 FD stole from a store in Lynnfield. The reader is directed to the posting below dated April 29, 2015. Attorney Lewin represented FD at her Clerk-Magistrate’s Hearing in Peabody District Court in that case and got the Clerk-Magistrate to continue the hearing for six months with no complaint to issue as long as FD stayed out of trouble. Unfortunately for FD on June 26, 2015 she went into the Shoe Market in Lynnfield and got caught stealing a $126.00 pair of shoes. FD received notices from the Peabody District Court that on July 22, 2015 a hearing would be held in Peabody District Court (1) to decide if a criminal complaint for the new shoplifting case would be issued against her and (2) to decide what action would be taken on the old, still open, case. FD once again retained Attorney Robert Lewin from North Andover. FD was at risk of having two criminal complaints for either shoplifting or larceny being issued against her. Attorney Lewin and FD and FD’s husband put together a strategy and plan of action to try to maximize the chances of not having criminal complaints be issued. FD enrolled in a Shoplifting Prevention Program; FD – who clearly is having psychological problems – enrolled in a treatment program with a licensed psychologist; FD’s husband went to the Shoe Market and apologized to the owner of the store and paid the store owner the $126.00 for the pair of shoes FD had stolen.

On July 22, 2015 FD, her husband, and Attorney Robert Lewin appeared in Peabody District Court for the hearing. Attorney Lewin presented the Clerk-Magistrate with a report from the psychologist and with proof that FD was enrolled in the Shoplifting Prevention Program. Attorney Lewin made an impassioned argument to the Clerk-Magistrate not to issue criminal complaints against FD. The Clerk-Magistrate agreed and continued the hearing for one year. If FD can stay out of trouble then on July 22, 2016 both applications for criminal complaint against FD will be dismissed and she does not have to return o court.

As a result of this disposition it is important to note the following:

April 29, 2015

DRUG CHARGES DISMISSED

by Robert D. Lewin

On November 20, 2014, ET, a 21 year old male, was being watched by the Lawrence Police. Following a drug transaction in ET’s car he got pulled over for speeding. Following the stop the police seized cocaine and percocette pills from ET. The police arrested ET and the next day he appeared in Court for an arraignment. ET’s case was continued for a pre-trial hearing to January 22, 2015. ET was/is a drug dependent person and was/is in need of drug treatment.

ET and his parents visited Attorney Robert Lewin in North Andover and retained Attorney Lewin to represent ET in this case. ET’s parents got ET into treatment immediately. Prior to the pre-trial hearing Attorney Lewin went over to the DA’s Office at Lawrence District Court and met with the Assistant District Attorney assigned to the case. Attorney Lewin was able to negotiate a general continuance of the case with a dismissal. On January 22, 2015, Attorney Lewin and ET appeared in Lawrence District Court. Attorney Lewin explained that ET was drug dependent, but that he was getting extensive treatment and therapy. Attorney Lewin advocated for the case to be continued generally and dismissed. The Judge adopted Attorney Lewin’s request and continued the case generally to April 29, 2015. When a case is continued generally there is no admission of guilt or wrongdoing. There is NO guilty plea; there is NO admission to sufficient facts. It is NOT a plea bargain. Between January 22 and April 29, 2015 ET remained in out-patient counseling and ET furnished Attorney Lewin with reports from his drug counselor and with signed attendance sheets from NA meetings.

On April 29, 2015 ET and Attorney Lewin appeared in Lawrence District Court. Attorney Lewin furnished the DA and the Judge with copies of the reports from the drug counselor and with the NA Attendance sheets. The Judge expressed her approval of ET’s efforts and ordered all the charges against ET dismissed. Because these drug charges were dismissed ET is eligible to have his record sealed immediately. ET left the court house a very happy client.

April 29, 2015

ANOTHER SHOPLIFTING CASE AVOIDED

by Robert D. Lewin

On March 12, 2015 FD, a 54 year old woman from Middleton went shopping at Whole Foods in Lynnfield. Instead of using a shopping cart FD used her pockets and pocket book. She filled up her pockets with packages of food and headed out the door. Unfortunately for FD she was being watched by a loss prevention officer (LPO). The LPO stopped FD just after she went out the door of the store. She was brought back to the security office and the Lynnfield Police were called in. The merchandise ($124.00 worth of food) was fully recovered. The store gave FD a No Trespass Order and the police told her she would be summonsed to court. FD retained Attorney Robert Lewin.

Attorney Lewin reached out to the Lynnfield Police and quickly negotiated a resolution of the case that would NOT involve FD being charged with any criminal offense. The case was set up for a Clerk-Magistrate Hearing at Peabody District Court. On April 29, 2015 FD and Attorney Lewin appeared at Peabody District Court for the hearing before the Clerk-Magistrate. The Clerk-Magistrate adopted Attorney Lewin’s request that a complaint NOT be issued against FD; the Clerk-Magistrate continued the hearing for four months and ordered that as long as FD stayed out of trouble then on the four month date she would not have to come to the court and the application for criminal complaint against her would be dismissed.

As a result of this disposition it is important to note the following: